Tackles to traction: Kids playing football a recipe for trouble

When people see my son, because of his large size they often say he’s going to be a linebacker. Many parents would be thrilled to hear such a prediction about a son, but I'm not many parents.

Before my son was born I decided he wouldn’t play football. Baseball, yes. Basketball, yes. Tennis, lacrosse, track: yes, yes, yes. But football, no.

The more we learn about football, the harder it is to justify allowing people to play it, especially children. When I was in middle school, a boy on our JV team had his femur snapped during a game. The sight made us turn away in horror. It was nearly a year before the boy could walk, and he never played football again. At the time it seemed the worst injury the sport could inflict. If only that were the case.

In 2009, the Center for Injury Research and Policy at Nationwide Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, concluded a study on concussions in high school athletes that made a protruding femur look as serious as an ingrown toenail. As many as 40.5 percent of high school athletes who sustain concussions return to action prematurely; 16 percent of football players reported returning to play the same day they lost consciousness (remember not every concussion causes a blackout).

The study’s director “conservatively” estimated that high school athletes sustained more than 130,000 concussions in 2008, and the CDC reported that for kids ages 15-24, sports are second only to car accidents as the leading cause of brain injury.

Immediately after reviewing the Children’s Hospital study, the National Federation of State High School Associations sent a revised concussion pamphlet to coaches.

“We're trying to keep this a front-burner issue," a federation representative said. Two years later, the only standardized test for football helmets (a test administered by helmet manufacturers and not an independent agency) remains whether they protect from skull fractures. Nothing about concussions.

But on May 10, 2011, after eight years of research, Virginia Tech released its football helmet performance study, the first of its kind to be released publicly. I was surprised to learn that two of the most popular helmets among teenagers (one is discontinued but still in use) are the lowest-ranked in concussion protection. But I was disgusted to learn that “Helmet companies have for years agreed among themselves not to disclose this type of testing data to the public because of how it can be misinterpreted” (NYTimes).

Purdue professor Eric Nauman was studying the brains of high school athletes when he found those who were “concussion-free” often showed as much brain damage as those who were concussed. Misinterpret this: high school players frequently sustain 1,500 head impacts a year, each carrying a 40G force, repeatedly damaging the frontal lobe (motor function, problem solving, memory, language, judgment, impulse control, etc.).

“It's very hard to find the players in this group," said Nauman. "Our fear is that they go undiagnosed, keep playing, and accumulate more and more damage.”

Football is an ambition for many American boys, but my son will not play football; and I know that's the right decision.

“Now that I've seen the pictures of brain changes among 'concussion-free' players," Nauman said, "I would no more let a school-age child of mine play competitive football than I would let him or her start smoking.”

A picture in my senior yearbook shows a football player in a blood-splattered uniform. He's obviously hurt, but I wonder if his mother would have so lustily cheered his return to the game had she known her son’s helmet was just for show, and that the worst cuts and bruises could very well be in his brain.~Juanita lives on a farm in Charlotte County with her husband, son and many dogs.

50 comments

Wow a sports reporter that openly flout her helicopter mom activism. Well you're right about one thing, if he took after you your son definitely doesn't need any more brain damage.

mer May 19th, 2011 | 7:32am

When my husband broke his neck in HS his first thought
was "I'm not paralyzed" and his second thought was
"Thank God I don't have to play football anymore."
He didn't play again but his coaches saw no reason for him to stop
even with 3 fused vertebrae in his neck. Crazy.

Chris May 19th, 2011 | 10:04am

If you do not want your child to play football that is fine, but leave it at that. No one else really cares what your opinion is. Everyone is aware of the risks associated with football. I played football in high school and there is nothing like it -{Watch Kenny Chesney's "The Boys of Fall"}- 99% of people who played the game love the game. I have never met a person who played the game who regretted playing.

confused easily May 19th, 2011 | 11:09am

Great team sport. The local Pop Warner league has great equipment and teaches proper technique.

Hayden Fox May 19th, 2011 | 11:23am

Maybe your child should wear a helmet all of the time. That would keep him safe. Try reporting on gardening as career move if you don't like football.

WTF? May 19th, 2011 | 11:52am

Many studies are now being done that are linking sports concussions and brain trauma with a condition much like ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease). Though more Op-ed than subjective the article point out some very important information regarding the dangers of not only football, but other impact sports (hockey, rugby etc.). Links to the studies mentioned would be very helpful in making your point Ms. Giles. Multiple retired NFL players are now being diagnosed with ALS or something like it because of the multiple injuries sustained from playing the game. I think the point of the article is that helmets need to be made and used to better protect the brain and not just skull fractures.

Mom of Boys May 19th, 2011 | 1:13pm

My son has broken a thumb, broken the tip of a vertebrae and sustained a concussion from football - a game he loves. After the broken bones, he recovered to play again the same season. After the concussion, it was an easy enough choice to stop playing, since there were no plans to play in college and we his parents did not feel the need to live through his exploits on the field. Yet several "teammates" berated him for being a quitter - that same bullying attitude displayed by several posters here. I'm pretty sure those kids had no plans for college, where a fully functioning brain is required.

justadude May 19th, 2011 | 2:00pm

Ms. Giles, I respect your decision to not allow your son play football. No one will dispute that it is a dangerous and violent game and is not suited for everyone. You are certainly not the first parent to make such a decision, and won't be the last. Subsequently, your op-ed is unoriginal, melodramatic, and is ground that has been walked over many times and you have shed no new light on anything.
I'm confused however by the fact that you would allow your son to play baseball. As benign as it may appear to the casual observer, it is equally as dangerous as football in many ways. I'm sure you are aware of the fact that the ball and bat can actually kill a person. There is not a baseball season that goes by that there is not a headline somewhere reporting that someone's child died while playing baseball.
My point is this Ms. Giles; Unlike athletic competition, there are many evils out there that can destroy your child that carry no redeeming qualities. You would be better served by trying to find out who these monsters are, and shelter your child from them. All the while, sparing us further from lousy op-eds.

Cassius May 19th, 2011 | 2:44pm

If you are not an idiot you know there is a chance of consussion in any contact sport, I guess I should't me surprised some hack, hick town "sports writer" is going to jump on the bandwagon an single out one sport that actually has quite a bit of protective gear. This has been being discussed for the past couple years in real sports media. I played football from 6th - 12th grade with the consent of my mother who was a 20 year medical professional at the time. I also was an avid skateboarder and was injured much worse doing that than playing both ways & special teams in 80% of the football games in my time. Correct coaching in proper tackling is also a must. Every coach tells you to avoid direct helmet to helmet contact at all costs, plus it's just bad tackling. One again this paper fills its paper with opinionated worthless crap. Thanks!

Chris May 19th, 2011 | 3:02pm

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, of course. But you're not entitled to your own facts. Those who are dismissing Juanita GIles' point of view on this are also dismissing rigorous, peer reviewed research and data. She has presented evidence and sources to support her assertion that football is too dangerous for young people and that the protection offered by the most common kinds of helmets is ineffective.

Simply because you like football or because your child plays football does not mean her points don't have merit.

Of course there is concussion risk in sports. There is concussion risk walking down the street. It's just that walking down the street carries far less risk than sports and most sports carry far less risk than football. Football is a sport in which the play doesn't usually end without a hit often on the parts of many players. Linemen and blockers get hit on every play. Basketball, soccer and baseball, for example, don't have those kinds of repeated hits.

Lastly, this is a freaking opinion column, of course it's opinionated. But it's also supported and sourced so you don't have to take her word for it.

Cassius May 19th, 2011 | 3:14pm

Aparrently you have a concussion.:-)

Chris May 19th, 2011 | 3:56pm

Mom of Boys:

Are you insinuating the men who play football at the Naval Academy, West Point, and Air Force Academy are less intelligent than say your "college bound" child? Your arrogance is laughable.

Kro May 19th, 2011 | 4:03pm

Played football for 4 years at Albemarle, 2004-2008. Played offensive lineman, the toughest position out there. Never got a concussion. Never broke a bone. Only had to sit out one series of downs due to cramping. Football isn't that dangerous of a sport if you act smart, block and tackle with the correct for, and do what your coaches tell you. Furthermore, I'm living proof that football is a excellent vehicle to turn someone into a successful individual.

Albeboy May 19th, 2011 | 4:15pm

Driving is more dangerous than football. I guess Juanita won't be letting her kids drive. For the kids, right?

Mom of Boys May 19th, 2011 | 4:38pm

Chris -
Actually, my son was given an Army ROTC scholarship, so waving the flag won't work here. I was unclear in my post - I was referring specifically to those kids who called a teammate a "wimp" and "quitter" despite the medical reason for his leaving the team. I employed the use of sarcasm to make my point.

Chris May 19th, 2011 | 4:43pm

Mom of Boys --

Point taken. It was unclear. No one should have criticized your son. My congratulations to him on the ROTC scholarship. Best wishes.

meanwhile May 19th, 2011 | 8:20pm

I think the hostility for Mrs. Giles and her article are misplaced. Often, hostility is expressed when an idea is introduced that makes people uncomfortable.

Certainly parents of football players love their children. No parent would want to think that an activity they promoted would be harmful to their child. But the evidence of football's danger is pretty clear and is becoming more and more widely known.

If kids want to play football and parents want to let them, fine. But don't get mad at someone with a different view who uses facts to buttress their opinion.

I've always loved watching football, and always will. But I would never let my son play in organized games. Mrs. Giles' article merely reinforces my view and I applaud her for writing it.

The Cruncher May 20th, 2011 | 7:03am

"but I wonder if his mother would have so lustily cheered his return to the game had she known her son’s helmet was just for show"

Yeah nothing but facts there. Certainly no stretched hyperbole by a mewling activist blowhard. Shut up meanwhile, I'm sure your kids probably wouldn't be any different after brain damage either, they won't need to think much in their future janitor jobs anyway.

The personal attacks on someone with a basic different of opinion, that she has obviously thought about and researched, seem to be the small minded of the lot about these parts.

That said, any sport can be dangerous for many different reasons. I know a high school girl that has had to quit soccer due to multiple concussions. My grandkids play Florida pee-wee football with gusto. The game I watched was boring beyond belief.

But, on the face of it, clearly football is the more dangerous of the American popular sports. Kids bodies are not developed but are pummeled. I am also curious if there is any sort of training and licensing programs for football coaches as in youth soccer. Anyone know?

democracy May 20th, 2011 | 11:08am

Any sport that involves running and jumping and multiple players provides opportunity for injury. Given the range of comments on this topic (football , here are two articles that can help to shed some light on football and injuries with some excerpts from each.

“Between 1982 and 2009, according to the National Center for Catastrophic Injury Research, two hundred and ninety-five fatalities directly or indirectly resulted from high-school football. From 1977 to 2009, at all levels, three hundred and seven cervical-cord injuries were recorded. And between 1984 and 2009 there were a hundred and thirty-three instances of brain damage—not slowly accruing damage, but damage upon impact. The injury incidence is far lower in most sports.”

“When Michael Oriard played for the Chiefs, in the early nineteen-seventies, he weighed two hundred and forty pounds; his counterpart on today’s Chiefs roster weighs about three hundred and ten, and is probably no slower.”

“Mel Blount and Willie Lanier and some others...raised the idea that it was no longer tackle football. It was becoming collision football. The players looked like bionic men.”

“Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E., is the name for a condition that is believed to result from major collisions—or from the accumulation of subconcussions that are nowhere near as noticeable, including those incurred in practice.”

“ESPN...invests more than a billion dollars a year in football broadcasting.”

“...retired N.F.L. players are five to nineteen times as likely as the general population to have received a dementia-related diagnosis...”

“Jim McMahon, the ex-quarterback, confessed at a twenty-fifth reunion of the 1985 Super Bowl champion Chicago Bears that his memory is ‘pretty much gone,’ and that he often walks into a room without knowing why. ‘It’s unfortunate what the game does to you’.”

Concussion: “This violent shaking causes the brain cells to become depolarized and fire all their neurotransmitters at once in an unhealthy cascade, flooding the brain with chemicals and deadening certain receptors linked to learning and memory. The results often include confusion, blurred vision, memory loss, nausea and, sometimes, unconsciousness.”

“Neurologists say once a person suffers a concussion, he is as much as four times more likely to sustain a second one. Moreover, after several concussions, it takes less of a blow to cause the injury and requires more time to recover.”

Webster52 May 20th, 2011 | 5:23pm

Irresponsible Journalism. Here are sports more dangerous than youth football:
Bicycling
Skiiing\Snowboarding
Baseball
Gymnastics
Competitive Cheerleading
Skatebording
Soccer
Hiking
Recreational Swimming
In High School, these activities are more dangerous than football:
Hanging out on the downtown mall on Friday nights
Riding mopeds
Doing Drugs
Cruising with your buddies in a car.
Hanging on the street corner.

Do your research next time!

DirtKicker May 20th, 2011 | 5:43pm

Well shucks, riding in a car is dangerous, as is riding a bike, jumping rope, hopscotch, etc. I guess about the only thing that would be safe would be to let them stay home and play video games, no brain damage there, oh........wait.......that desensitizes them to killing according to some people. I think that the safest thing to do would be to have them sit and stare at the corner or maybe watch the grass grow, those are pretty safe activities.

darnit May 20th, 2011 | 10:32pm

Webster52 - was waiting for someone to mention competitve cheerleading....amongst the others you named...but that's more foder for Juanita's next article!

democracy May 21st, 2011 | 7:06am

Webster52,

"Chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or C.T.E., is the name for a condition that is believed to result from major collisions—or from the accumulation of subconcussions that are nowhere near as noticeable, including those incurred in practice. It was first diagnosed, in 2002, in the brain of the Pittsburgh Steelers Hall of Fame center Mike Webster, who died of a heart attack after living out of his truck for a time. It was next diagnosed in one of Webster’s old teammates on the Steelers’ offensive line, Terry Long, who killed himself by drinking antifreeze. Long overlapped, at the end of his career, with Justin Strzelczyk, who was also found to have C.T.E. after he crashed, fatally, into a tanker truck, while driving the wrong way down the New York Thruway."

"Webster was often laced with a varying, numbing cocktail of medications: Ritalin or Dexedrine to keep him calm. Paxil to ease anxiety. Prozac to ward off depression. Klonopin to prevent seizures. Vicodin or Ultram or Darvocet or Lorcet, in various combinations, to subdue the general ache. And Eldepryl, commonly prescribed to patients who suffer from Parkinson's disease."

"After 17 seasons in the National Football League, Webster had lost any semblance of control over his once-invincible body. His brain showed signs of dementia. His head throbbed constantly. He suffered from significant hearing loss. Three lumbar vertebrae and two cervical vertebrae ached from frayed and herniated discs. A chronically damaged right heel caused him to limp. His right shoulder was sore from a torn rotator cuff. His right elbow grew stiff from once being dislocated. His knees, the cartilage in them all but gone, creaked from years of bone grinding against bone. His knuckles were scarred and swollen. His fingers bent gruesomely wayward."

It's funny to read the reasoned and well-researched opinions explaining the quite rational opinion that football is a dangerous sport and the emotional responses that boil down to, "ME LIKE FOOTBALL. ME NO THINK DAMAGE BRAIN."

These emotional, grammatically challenged comments could very well be assembled and submitted as exhibit A in the court of public opinion for the case against football as a dangerous sport for subsequent cognitive ability.

The Cruncher May 21st, 2011 | 11:34am

I repeat: "but I wonder if his mother would have so lustily cheered his return to the game had she known her son’s helmet was just for show"

Yeah that's not a purely emotional hyperbole. Like I said, meanwhile, you're certainly not as smart as you think you are, in fact being impressed by flowery speech that doesn't make any cogent point makes me think I'm spot on in calling you and your progeny brain damaged and most fit for mopping hard to reach corners.

meanwhile May 21st, 2011 | 1:27pm

Cruncher, your attempts at insults only mask a deep insecurity. I'm sorry that bringing up brain damage triggers an emotional response in you.

John Walton Giuliano May 21st, 2011 | 1:31pm

If football killed as many Americans as terrorism, they'd body scan you with deadly radiation before letting you on the field, and make you give up all your freedoms in the name of stopping football advocates. Anyone who spoke out in favor of football would be an unpatriotic because football kills so many children. Oh, wait. It has killed a hell of a lot more children than Osama Bin Laden or Alciada in the last ten years. But then why do all the people who actually think Bin Laden has been successfully fighting Marfan's disease-related kidney failure for the last ten years and are glad he's finally "dead" love football so much? It's a threat to your child's national security, folks! Bin Football kills dozens of children, every single year! He must be apprehended and/or killed ASAP!

Webster 52 May 21st, 2011 | 1:52pm

democracy,

Mike Webster played 13yrs in the NFL without ever missing a game and in a trapping style offense that didn't emphasize hand blocking. He was a bit undersized and he had a history of steriods in his playing days. Using Mike would be a very extreme example. My 2 sons played 4 yrs of high school football and my daughter played 4 yrs of field hockey. My daughter was the one to get a concussion.

The Cruncher May 21st, 2011 | 4:59pm

Deep seated insecurity? No, the insecurity is quite open that nanny state cowards like you will try to dictate how other people live their lives because you're too jelly spined to do anything yourself.

There is increasing, solid evidence that repetitive head injury, even if it does not reach the level of concussion, causes long-term impairment in cognitive functioning. If I had a son, I would not let him play football, either. It's one thing to break bones--a person can get by with a limp or a bad shoulder. But once your brain goes, it's a completely different story. Why set your kid up for neurological and cognitive problems at age 50?

I get that football fans love their sport, but to Cruncher and the others who have been dismissive of this column: Please look at the evidence for a minute without being defensive. It's not about helicopter parents--it's about not encouraging your kid to play a sport that, over the long term, could lead to irreparable problems that will create immense suffering for the person and his family. There are lots of great sports out there that won't make you a dribbling, wheelchair-bound person at age 60.

Caesonia May 22nd, 2011 | 10:02am

Nanny State Cruncher? Really? I love the hypocritical stance of you right wing flakes. You want to do what you want to do, but you want someone else to pay for it. How do all the rest of us pay for it?

Well, see, in these here United States, we have this wonderfully over priced useless healthcare system. It's model is socialized medicine run for profit. That's right. SOCIALIZED medicine, run for profit. Secretly co neamed as 'private health insurace' it's entire business model is actually social. We pay in premiums into a large pool to get health care should we become sick or injured, that by ourselves, we could never hope to afford.

So when football players go out and smash themselves up, or insurnace premiums go up to cover that cost. They also go up to cover the heart problems, weight problems, and mental problmes caused by repetitive steroid abuse, along with other drugs. Most of those linesmen are just plain over weight. Remember the Fridge? Obese.

How much do you wanna bet that when you see fat people and then think of Canada's healthc are system you scream about you aren't going to pay for fat welfare people. But you'll pay for fat footballers.

High school is full of stories of kids playing football dropping dead of heat stroke, and suffering a number of other illness, in addition to injuries that you just don't see in other sports, including Ice Hockey, which is a contact sport with body checking. But even enforcers spend most of their time actually skating and puck handling, unlike 95% of a football team, which is about running a few yards to hit the guy in front of you.

Nanny State my foot. When you start paying ALL of your health care expensies out of your own pocket, then you come back and talk to me about that and the wonders of football.

Until you know what you are talking about, as someone who was a pro in athletics, I suggest you keep your stupid right wing comments to yourself. There is no value in an intelligent discussion, which the article writer was attempting.

John Walton Giuliano May 22nd, 2011 | 10:30am

Dawg, have you ever let your children drink tap water or beverages made with such? Check out the I.Q. studies on water fluoridation. Ever give your kids vaccines? They've brain damaged millions, admittedly in private meetings, according to the C.D.C. but they can't admit it openly for liability purposes. Come to think of it football is probably promoted by the government and media not only for it's simulated warfare steam valve effect on society where people have an outlet for real instincts to fight the enemy tribe over the hill to be honed without posing a threat to any real enemies, such as the government that pushes the football craze, but also for it's physical dumbing down effects as well. Anyone dumb enough not to see sports for what they are was probably playing football during high school instead of reading Plato's republic.

The Cruncher May 22nd, 2011 | 11:19am

Get over yourself, you pea brain. If anything, athletics decreases the overall obesity rate by teaching kids how to condition their bodies to stay in shape, which is probably THE most defining characteristic in bringing health care costs down. There's evidence that regular exercise, even in the overweight and moderately obese, does miraculous things for health and reduces the need for medical care. How many student athletes do you think have any health problems whatsoever until they're at least in their mid 50's? How many liberal fatties or otherwise out of shape individuals (undoubtedly like yourself) have to have heart bypasses or regular treatment in their 20's because they've never actually done physical labor in their lives? Remember that's not something that goes away either, those people ALL need regular medical treatment for the rest of their lives. I'm sure it's hundreds of times more than the half dozen or so football players in the last couple decades that have gotten heat stroke and died which the liberal media never fails to bring up.

Don't get a heart attack raging out at the actual facts behind your BS lies, remember the rest of us are paying for it.

Caesonia May 22nd, 2011 | 2:09pm

I have an IQ of 173 in my pea brain Cruncher.

"If anything, athletics decreases the overall obesity rate by teaching kids how to condition their bodies to stay in shape,"

Nice attempt at a pathetic dodge. How right wing of you. We aren't talking about athletics, we are talking about football. If there is one sport where real athletics is limited to a few players, that would be football, followed closely by baseball. But in baseball everyone has to actually be able to sprint around the bases and they don't spend all their time on the field trying to crash into another player.

Get with the program Cruncher. No free lunches. Boot straps. I am not interested in paying higher premiums to cover people who take steroids, get fat so they have mass to mash someone else a few feet away, and then tear up their joints and brains because of it.

Or open your mind a little instead to what the woman is saying - there are some hidden dangers in the sport.

Caesonia May 22nd, 2011 | 2:19pm

Oh and Cruncher?

"How many liberal fatties or otherwise out of shape individuals (undoubtedly like yourself) have to have heart bypasses or regular treatment in their 20's because they've never actually done physical labor in their lives?"

If you had read my post, you would know your comment about me would be untrue. Not in the same shape as I was as a pro, but better than most. No dice on the heart thing any time soon, if ever. Sorry.

And Liberals aren't the ones crowing about the boot strap everyone pay for themselves thing while advocating people shouldn't be in a Nanny State. Righties like you are.

You are a ranting hypocrite. Deal with it. Or stop being a hypocrite.

The Cruncher May 22nd, 2011 | 2:54pm

Yeah, right. You just happen to be a supergenius while not knowing the first thing about health and a pro athlete who happens to hate sports. Tell me another one. I'll bet you're 400 lbs and look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.

I and most conservatives don't have any problems with people paying their own way, the health care system we have is insane and lefty bureaucracy worshippers like you are the reason why costs are so high.

Caesonia May 22nd, 2011 | 3:19pm

I should just call you Strawman maker, Cruncher. As in you are attempting to create a straw man argument by pretending I posted things I never posted so you could pretend you actually had something of value to say. A less polite word for this is called lying, something you are desperate to accuse me off. Can you say proh-jec-shun'?

I never said I was against sports. I said I was against your hypocritical right wing stance hile you ridicule someone who wrote a thoughtful article on some of the dangers of sport that are all too often ignored. She's right. Many of the responses here are proof if it.

I admit I am not a big fan of football, because I don't really consider it a good representation of true athletics except in a few positions in its modern form. Plus, a look in the fan stands shows that it doesn't have very much influence on things like weight management, and fitness as you claim. Some day look at the stands at Wimbledon, and you will see a less slovenly crowd, with few beer guts than at a UVA match.

If you buy health insurance Cruncher, you support socialized healthcare, just one that is run for the profit of a few. I don't care to subsidize your entertainment needs with either my premiums or my tax dollars.

The Cruncher May 22nd, 2011 | 6:51pm

"I never said I was against sports. I said I was against your hypocritical right wing stance hile you ridicule someone who wrote a thoughtful article on some of the dangers of sport that are all too often ignored. She's right. Many of the responses here are proof if it."

Yes, anonymous responses on the internet are proof that an article full of emotion and conjecture, which I've already quoted, are true. Are you even listening to yourself? I guess we should ban kids riding in cars, too, because that happens to be the #1 source of brain injury? Sports are fun, they condition bodies to be healthier overall and yes, if you've ever been through a football practice you'd know they are absolutely conditioning to fitness.

"I admit I am not a big fan of football, because I don't really consider it a good representation of true athletics except in a few positions in its modern form."

Well I'm glad we all asked you your opinions on football, oh wait we didn't and no one cares. Football and football training more closely resembles weight training than pure cardio, which is not only more important in the development of muscle but also actually burns more calories and contributes more to cardiac health. If you'd have had any knowledge of any topic resembling sports you'd know this, but of course you don't.

You're a cretin if you think having less sports are going to make kids fitter, they're already fat enough because of liberal peabrains like you who tell them they have to sit and learn about earth worship and whatever the liberal flavor of the week is. I'd rather pay for their joint surgery at 18 and aspirin than a triple bypass a few years later and anticoagulants and blood pressure medication for their entire lives.

Dawg May 22nd, 2011 | 8:26pm

Cruncher, Caesonia is right about you. You are arguing against positions Caesonia did not take.You just sound really angry that your football watching days may be numbered.

John Guiliano, I agree with the "bread and circuses" role of football; I don't think the government is actively promoting it, though. As far as I can tell, the gov't spends most of its time writing contracts that allow private industry to do what government used to do itself, only at three times the cost.

I am unaware of studies showing that fluoridation causes lower IQs, but it seems to me that if IQs have dropped since communities started fluoridating water, it would more likely be the result of the vast increase in TV watching and the decrease in quality TV programming during the same period!

meanwhile May 22nd, 2011 | 9:00pm

Apparently this is Cruncher's M.O. He doesn't have a valid argument to make about the actual topic of discussion (that a Mom doesn't want her children to play football because it is inherently dangerous), so he invents positions of people on the "other" side and then argues against THOSE positions.

There is no point in discussing this topic, or any other topic, with him.

The Cruncher May 23rd, 2011 | 7:00am

And now the fat liberals console each other about how the bad man hurt their feelings because he called them out on their BS that they know nothing about. And I wouldn't worry about football not being around, strong men still make the decisions and will continue to do so because it only requires a small recurrence of nanny statism for people to remember why it's such an insane idea.

Dawg May 23rd, 2011 | 8:06am

Cruncher, you exemplify all that is wrong with politics today. I can see you running for Congress on the standard incoherent Tea Party platform.

HollowBoy May 23rd, 2011 | 8:11am

How about rugby? Talk about a rough game! And they don't have protectiver gear like football players. Any brain injury figures out there on rugby players?
It seems so many, and that includes Ms Giles, is missing the point. Helmets need to be of better quality to lessen the chance of head injury. And helmet to helmet contact needs to be strictly forbidden.
Theodore Roosevelt, whom no one over called a wimp,was concerned about the deaths and injuries in football and even said it should be banned if things didnt change. They did, and the game became much safer. I agree there is room for improvement, but banning the game as some seem to wish, goes entirely too far.
Baseball is not without the chance of serious injury or death. Many players have had their careers ruined or diminished by beanballs, whether intentionally thrown or not. There was even a fatality from being hit in the head, shortstop Ray Chapman of the Cleveland Indians in 1920.
He was hit by Yankees pitcher Carl Mays and died shortly thereafter. No action was taken against Mays as it was deemed he did not do it intentionally and that Chapman had a stance where he leaned into the plate and thus made himself more vulnerable.
Not just pitched balls either. Cleveland's pitcher Herb Score never was the same again, his career basically over, after being smashed in the face by a line drive off the bat of the Yankees Gil McDougald. And McDougald's career was affected to as he was very emotionally affected by what happened. It was said he changed his stance and became less effective because he was worried about hitting a ball in the direction of the pitcher's mound.
Incidentally, after the Chapman death, Cleveland rallied and went on to finish the season as world champions. Of course the fact that the White Sox suspended some of their best players toward the end of the season due to the Black Sox charges may have had something to do with it too.

Old Timer May 23rd, 2011 | 10:26am

Crucnher,

I would say Caesonia hit your nail on the head several times and that's your real beef. The conflict between your bleat about the Nanny State while you avail yourself of things other people pay for, like your health insurance, pretty much explains why I as a Libertarian cannot stand people like you. The claims of cretinism and ignorance really rest on your own lack of a rational argument, and your comments on weight lifting really only plays into something Caesonia was hinting at, but you are too myopic to see.

Your other typical conflict is to talk about strong men, but if Liberals were all so weak, they wouldn't be able to enforce a Nanny State, now would they?

No one is stopping football. They are saying the game might need to be changed. The writer of the article is stating her right to make an individual choice in this land of the free, and gives a perfectly rational reason why.

Do you have a problem with Mrs. Giles exercising her own personal choice?